Perhaps we can avoid thread lockage by letting the OP get answers to the question he asked. EC2 has told us why he's not Catholic: He believes that the Catholic Church requires belief in things that are not scriptural. We can argue about whether or not that is a good criterion, but we have to take him at his word that this is the reason he isn't Catholic.

Any others, from anyone else?

I thought my answer was pretty clear. How many non-Caths do you even have on this board? Me, Ectum, Vinny . . . I haven't paid a lot of attention recently.

Perhaps we can avoid thread lockage by letting the OP get answers to the question he asked. EC2 has told us why he's not Catholic: He believes that the Catholic Church requires belief in things that are not scriptural. We can argue about whether or not that is a good criterion, but we have to take him at his word that this is the reason he isn't Catholic.

Any others, from anyone else?

I thought my answer was pretty clear. How many non-Caths do you even have on this board? Me, Ectum, Vinny . . . I haven't paid a lot of attention recently.

I could be wrong but I think that O-WK's welcome admonition was specifically directed at the spin off questions that arose as a result of my response/ input to the O/P. The tone of the spin off pretty much was an illustration of the concern I raised initially. Although that is only my private interpretation...

_________________________________________"I believe in order that I may understand” - Anselm

Perhaps we can avoid thread lockage by letting the OP get answers to the question he asked. EC2 has told us why he's not Catholic: He believes that the Catholic Church requires belief in things that are not scriptural. We can argue about whether or not that is a good criterion, but we have to take him at his word that this is the reason he isn't Catholic.

Any others, from anyone else?

I thought my answer was pretty clear. How many non-Caths do you even have on this board? Me, Ectum, Vinny . . . I haven't paid a lot of attention recently.

And me . . . Adino the Eznite. NOT- Catholic!

Well, the OP asked the question, so here is my reply.

Why am I not Catholic?????

I used to be. I was raised as a child, a catholic, from babyhood, mother and father were Catholic. I was sprinkled with water on the forehead as a child as is still done today, not fully immersed as Scripture states, (I have a photograph), I went to catholic school, learnt some Latin, sang hymns, prayed to statues of Mary and dead saints, was confirmed, what ever that had to do with salvation, I still don't know? was trained to be and became an alter boy. I was bashed many times, senseless by the sisters of mercy at school for not much reason at all. Survived this and I then was sent by my parents to a Marist brothers catholic collage throughout the high school years, 12 to 16 years old. I was approached by a brother, the head master in fact to strip down in his office, I could never work out why until later on in years, I refused and threatened him with violence, I was 16 and a big strong rugby player forward, he backed off very quickly, PLUS what I have since learnt in the Scriptures, I left as soon as possible!

Sorry if I have offended anyone, I know not all have had this happen in their lives

To the Protestants on this board, what reasons are holding you back from becoming Catholic? Or simply, how come you're not Catholic?

It was, Aquinas wrote, “a shrewd decision on his (Mohammad's) part to forbid his followers to read the Old and New Testaments, lest these books convict him of falsity.”

It is my decision never commit my spiritual life/ allegiance to anyone, having read the Old and New Testaments, that would even hint at the concept that Christians and Muslims “worship the one living and merciful God, and call upon him in prayer.” http://www.catholic.com/blog/todd-aglia ... he-one-god

Start with the obvious: Christians believe Jesus is God, but the Quran is so opposed to this belief that it condemns Jesus worshipers to Hell (5.72). For Christians, Jesus is certainly God, and for Muslims Jesus is certainly not God.

According to Jesus, God is our Father, yet the Quran very specifically denies that Allah is a father (112.1-4). In fact, in 5.18, the Quran tells Muslims to rebuke Jews and Christians for calling God their loving Father because humans are just things that God has created.

Islam roundly condemns the concept of the Trinity (5.73), establishing in contrast its own core principle: Tawhid, the absolute oneness of God. Tawhid specifically denies the Trinity, so much so that it is safe to say the doctrine of God in Christianity is antithetical to the doctrine of God in Islam. Not just different but completely opposed to one another.

How can people argue that Muslims and Christians worship the same God? By unduly giving priority to the Islamic assertion that this is the same God. The Quran says that Allah is the God of the Bible, so He must be. The Quran says that Allah is the God of the Biblical prophets, so He must be.

The Quran says that Muslims and Christians worship the same God, so it must be the same God. Ultimately, this is the reasoning of those who believe that Muslims and Christians worship the same God, and it is flawed.

n the contrary daisy... many many Christians deny that our Lord founded the Catholic Church...

With respect to you, I don't believe that at all. For a start, these is no where in Scripture that says Peter was the first Pope?

Jesus Christ is the Rock upon which the Christian church is built upon, not some man?

(1 Cor. 10:4: "And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ."). Peter was just a "stone" (John 1:42 KJV: "...thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, "A stone."

And this?

Mary helps in salvation "She (Mary) is inseparably linked with the saving work of her Son." (Pg. 332, # 1172)

There is no mention in Scriptures where Mary has anything to do with salvation. Her intercessions will not help for the Bible says JESUS is the ONLY WAY to God: "neither is there salvation in any other: for there is NONE OTHER NAME under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." -Acts 4:12

And the immaculate conception, she was born without sin? Another lie, she had need of a saviour just as we all do.

"and if we too have said like Peter, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ not as if flesh and blood had revealed it unto us, but by the light from the Father in heaven having shone in our heart, we become a Peter, and to us there might be said by the Word, ‘Thou art Peter,’ etc. For a rock is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, and upon every such rock is built every word of the Church, and the polity in accordance with it; for in each of the perfect, who have the combination of words and deeds and thoughts which fill up the blessedness, is the church built by God.But if you suppose that upon the one Peter only the whole church is built by God, what would you say about John the son of thunder or each one of the Apostles? Shall we otherwise dare to say, that against Peter in particular the gates of Hades shall not prevail, but that they shall prevail against the other Apostles and the perfect? Does not the saying previously made, ‘The gates of Hades shall not prevail against it,’ hold in regard to all and in the case of each of them? And also the saying, ‘Upon this rock I will build My Church?’ Are the keys of the kingdom of heaven given by the Lord to Peter only, and will no other of the blessed receive them? But if this promise, ‘I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ be common to others, how shall not all things previously spoken of, and the things which are subjoined as having been addressed to Peter, be common to them?‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ If any one says this to Him…he will obtain the things that were spoken according to the letter of the Gospel to that Peter, but, as the spirit of the Gospel teaches to every one who becomes such as that Peter was. For all bear the surname ‘rock’ who are the imitators of Christ, that is, of the spiritual rock which followed those who are being saved, that they may drink from it the spiritual draught. But these bear the surname of rock just as Christ does. But also as members of Christ deriving their surname from Him they are called Christians, and from the rock, Peters…And to all such the saying of the Savior might be spoken, ‘Thou art Peter’ etc., down to the words, ‘prevail against it.’ But what is the it? Is it the rock upon which Christ builds the Church, or is it the Church? For the phrase is ambiguous. Or is it as if the rock and the Church were one and the same? This I think to be true; for neither against the rock on which Christ builds His Church, nor against the Church will the gates of Hades prevail. Now, if the gates of Hades prevail against any one, such an one cannot be a rock upon which the Christ builds the Church, nor the Church built by Jesus upon the rock" Origen, Commentary on Matthew, Chapters 10-11.

It is not my intention here to play book reference bingo. The point I am making is that one of the very early Church fathers, a highly respected and prolific apologist, did not even think/ hint that the narrative in Matthew meant what is assumed in Catholic theology today.

It is not my intention here to play book reference bingo. The point I am making is that one of the very early Church fathers, a highly respected and prolific apologist, condemned for heresy, did not even think/ hint that the narrative in Matthew meant what is assumed in Catholic theology today, unlike a vast majority of the other, orthodox, fathers

You don't want to go there. Origen died in the bosom of Holy Mother Church. Whatever his errors were, he is still a highly respected exegete, spoken well of by Pope Benedict (and many others). If Origen insisted on this meaning for this passage, then he was wrong. Big deal. I can find individual Fathers who were wrong on all sorts of things.